What are your views on what "green" design/lifestyle means and requires. As an architecture student, this is a major topic these days, but I wonder what everyone else thinks of this topic and it's importance. I am a conservative in a field of liberals, especially on this topic, and am interested in green design without the eco-freakishness. Comment away, and I will reply later with a little more on where i am going with this.

I have to agree with you, as a soon to be graduate of the Interior Architecture program, I feel that I am not fully prepaired for the real world. It is much worse in the Architeture program where theory is king, and no project has a base in reality. Most of the projects I have done have real world clients to answer to, and have to be practical in many senses. We also deal with product and furniture design, where marketabilty and produceable design is the main goal.

There are the "environmentalists" and then there are the "conservationists". I am in the latter category. Greens tend to be environmentalists - people are the lowest form of life, in their opinion. People shouldn't have the right to any of the land or natural resources. But conservationists want to share the planet. High density housing is fine, when it allows large tracts of green space. Energy efficient houses - large windows to get light and heat at the right times, but trees to provide cooling and shade - are conservationist. An example of what I mean would be a 20 acre tract that would allow 20 homes to be built in close proximity on 5 acres, leaving 15 acres of green space, as opposed to making each home site be an acre. Of course, the 15 acres should be native vegetation, not cultivated lawn. And, of course, conservationists usually prefer dense cities and open country to sprawling suburbs. So do Greens, but they want to stop the suburbs, and Conservationists just want to plan them.

See, I have this theory that without language, thought is not possible. And when we garbage-up the language, we garbage-up our thought processes. That is what destroyed our legal system and our education system. Looks to me that architecture is at risk.

That is exactly what I am trying to solve, cost efficent sustainable design. That is the only way it will suceed. I also think that long term costs be considered, as quality cost more, but can pay out over time.

Green design is not science. its chicanery. Engineers examine choices between competing designs using a cost-benefit analysis. I have yet to hear of a green design that passes a cost-benefit analysis as the least costly alternative. The irrational decision to select a more expensive alternative is a reflection of too much government intervention. The environmental engineering business is the worst abuser of raping the taxpayer. The environmental engineers doing public work command fees about 30 to 50 percent more than other civil engineering disciplines. Why? Because the government redistributes your money into wasteful projects.

Eco-buildings seem to be in the same vein as eco-vehicles. If a design is created, that is cheap and makes us less dependent on Big Business and Big Brother, it disappears into a deep void. If it makes the ecologists and the Powers more money and more powerful, it will be forced upon all of us.

I'm no big fan of those buildings out in CA that have a regular roof, but covered in tallgrass. It's supposed to keep things cool, but I've heard stories about them leaking, or turning the roof into a wildfire when struck by lightning. Ugly too.

How do you propose to change this, and what role should Uncle Sam have.

I thought you were looking for views on what we thought about green design. Well, you have mine. Now you want me to solve it? That's for the next generation. I'm old enough to show you the problem. You're young enough to bang your head against the wall for a few years fixing it.

And what role should the govermnent play? I drink bottled spring water packaged by private industry because government water is only fit to bath in and water my lawn. Ya got it?

Not only does it help keep the bulding cool, but it reduce rainwater runoff, and with that, the amount of water that the city has to carry away. this reduces the chance of flooding and reduces load on municipal waste water systems, and therefore CAN reduce tax load. It also helps with the "heat island" effect of large cities, where temp. can increase 10+ degrees in the city.

Would you be willing to pay more initailly, if you were shown that you would retrive the cost over time through reduced utility bills and maintenance costs? Or are you decisions driven by the initial contruction costs? What do you feel about tax incentives for using techniques and technologies that reduce your energy consumtion and environmental impact?

Money ..... Cost. Time to build the "new features. Payback. Return on investment for what you pay for the property vs what you can charge for rent. Energy savings vs. cost of building the new features. Looks and access (useability!) vs "architectural touchy-feely feel-good" attitude.

Liability of the "new" features:" You want to be responsible in 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years and 20 years when those lead-acid batteries need to be disposed of .... after not savings ANY money for the past twenty? You going to pay insurance for a potential hydrogen-gas-sufuric acid bomb is sitting in the basement?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.